The world is crumbling around you and there is nothing you can do about it.

Nobody wants to ever think that, but it’s true. Homes have been demolished. Lives have been upended. Entire worlds have caved into themselves, collapsed like broken hearts, been swallowed whole. What to do? What to do?

The eternal cynic that I am, I don’t have any illusions as to the effectiveness of any charity on any disaster. The damage we see on television screens is merely a outward manifestation of the damage done within, the havoc wreaked at seeing a loved one buried under rubble, every road you’ve ever walked on turned to dust and memory.

What then does one say when a group of singers come together to sing in the hopes of “helping Haiti”? Can you help Haiti? Is donating money all it takes? For those among us who have suffered immeasurably from situations such as these, the damage cannot be measured, and cannot be repaired. For those of us who have observed the damage being done, it is important, a moral duty, to not say that we did nothing, regardless of the very real, very human, futility of our mission. I have always believed that the intention of action being more important than the action itself (There are exceptions, of course, as with everything else), so I applaud efforts such as this. But the truth remains that every situation creates winners and losers. The child traffickers are already taking advantage. Loans are being arranged for the country that will steep the country further in debt. Brazil has assumed responsibility for the country’s reconstruction, signifying another handover to another country for a land who the people that inhabit it have never truly owned. The world spins as it always has, just more broken, and with less agency for those who have been robbed of so much by the disaster.

Again, I understand the need for charity at its most marginal level, and the immediate needs that would be met by the work of the aid agencies. But still. But still…

Re: Brazil – Brazil has headed the UN / US occupation of Haiti since 2004. They have taken an aggressive stance in their military occupation and have been responsible for killings, beatings and rape of women in the country. My question is – which Haitians were consulted about who should lead the reconstruction? why are there now 20,000 US troops plus additional UN troops in Haiti. Where is all the money which has been collected because from talking to people in Port-au-Prince the majority have yet to receive any benefit. One startling set of beneficiaries however are the hundreds of aid workers , free lance journalists, photographers, missionaries and other assortment of “do gooders” that have descended on the country, who need to be fed and watered. Let us be clear this is a huge money making venture at the expense of the majority already poor population.

Re: Brazil – Brazil has headed the UN / US occupation of Haiti since 2004. They have taken an aggressive stance in their military occupation and have been responsible for killings, beatings and rape of women in the country. My question is – which Haitians were consulted about who should lead the reconstruction? why are there now 20,000 US troops plus additional UN troops in Haiti. Where is all the money which has been collected because from talking to people in Port-au-Prince the majority have yet to receive any benefit. One startling set of beneficiaries however are the hundreds of aid workers , free lance journalists, photographers, missionaries and other assortment of “do gooders” that have descended on the country, who need to be fed and watered. Let us be clear this is a huge money making venture at the expense of the majority already poor population.

Saratu

@Artsville – Thanks!

@ Sokari – “My question is – which Haitians were consulted about who should lead the reconstruction?”

That’s the biggie, isn’t it?

“why are there now 20,000 US troops plus additional UN troops in Haiti. Where is all the money which has been collected because from talking to people in Port-au-Prince the majority have yet to receive any benefit.”

*sigh*

Where does one even start??

The issue for me is that the lines get really blurry when it comes to saying who the monsters are. I, for one, am not entirely convinced that the Haitians would benefit tremendously if the money were indeed in Haitian hands. The tendency on the part of the Haves is to turn everything into a business venture — it’s a predilection that goes with capitalist leanings and the idea that people should pull themselves up by the bootstraps. I assume good intentions with all the aid efforts in Haiti, but the amount of people who have it in their power to gain a foothold in situations like this are those that had money in the first place, which basically means that the rich come out richer, the poor poorer. Back to square one. Just more broken. Just more pronounced.

This is clearly a case of mixed incentives, where complete economic independence would do U.S. and other larger powers no good, yet morality demands that they aim for that. Let’s zoom out a bit: AU Pres. Jean Ping, in a recent interview, when asked about the conflict in Sudan, accused the NGOs and the aid workers of inflating the number of casualties so as to gain more donations, implying that these folks, from Oxfam and Red Cross on down, do not have an incentive for peace. Could Ping be right? Maybe.

But turn that argument on its head: Could he also be in cahoots with these corrupt govt officials who need to create a desert so people wouldn’t know that there’s no peace? Will the Europeans and Americans not feel better about trading with them in the light of day if they at least pretend to be interested in peace and due process? Maybe.

You could do the same with the right-wingers in the US, who face their own set of mixed incentives, as people are more likely to espouse their views and vote for their politicians if there’s another terrorist attack on American soil. But do they actually want there to be another attack? I’m willing to shed my cynicism and say no. Others wouldn’t be as kind.

Also, I just don’t buy that things were to be any different. There is an institutionalist mentality with governments. In order for the money not to get in the wrong hands, the institutions need to work. They’ve never worked before in Haiti. Why would they start now? And was this lack of functionality not to the benefit of the high and mighty in Haiti? Who’s to say the awarding of contracts to rebuild the country — which will probably now go to Brazilian and U.S. firms — will help bolster the Haitian economy, not the American or the Brazilian? Show me a disaster and I’ll show you a nasty case of disturbing mixed incentives, especially when it happens to people who had little to begin with. It was always going to be like this. That’s the sad reality.

Saratu

@Artsville – Thanks!

@ Sokari – “My question is – which Haitians were consulted about who should lead the reconstruction?”

That’s the biggie, isn’t it?

“why are there now 20,000 US troops plus additional UN troops in Haiti. Where is all the money which has been collected because from talking to people in Port-au-Prince the majority have yet to receive any benefit.”

*sigh*

Where does one even start??

The issue for me is that the lines get really blurry when it comes to saying who the monsters are. I, for one, am not entirely convinced that the Haitians would benefit tremendously if the money were indeed in Haitian hands. The tendency on the part of the Haves is to turn everything into a business venture — it’s a predilection that goes with capitalist leanings and the idea that people should pull themselves up by the bootstraps. I assume good intentions with all the aid efforts in Haiti, but the amount of people who have it in their power to gain a foothold in situations like this are those that had money in the first place, which basically means that the rich come out richer, the poor poorer. Back to square one. Just more broken. Just more pronounced.

This is clearly a case of mixed incentives, where complete economic independence would do U.S. and other larger powers no good, yet morality demands that they aim for that. Let’s zoom out a bit: AU Pres. Jean Ping, in a recent interview, when asked about the conflict in Sudan, accused the NGOs and the aid workers of inflating the number of casualties so as to gain more donations, implying that these folks, from Oxfam and Red Cross on down, do not have an incentive for peace. Could Ping be right? Maybe.

But turn that argument on its head: Could he also be in cahoots with these corrupt govt officials who need to create a desert so people wouldn’t know that there’s no peace? Will the Europeans and Americans not feel better about trading with them in the light of day if they at least pretend to be interested in peace and due process? Maybe.

You could do the same with the right-wingers in the US, who face their own set of mixed incentives, as people are more likely to espouse their views and vote for their politicians if there’s another terrorist attack on American soil. But do they actually want there to be another attack? I’m willing to shed my cynicism and say no. Others wouldn’t be as kind.

Also, I just don’t buy that things were to be any different. There is an institutionalist mentality with governments. In order for the money not to get in the wrong hands, the institutions need to work. They’ve never worked before in Haiti. Why would they start now? And was this lack of functionality not to the benefit of the high and mighty in Haiti? Who’s to say the awarding of contracts to rebuild the country — which will probably now go to Brazilian and U.S. firms — will help bolster the Haitian economy, not the American or the Brazilian? Show me a disaster and I’ll show you a nasty case of disturbing mixed incentives, especially when it happens to people who had little to begin with. It was always going to be like this. That’s the sad reality.

About NigeriansTalk

NigeriansTalk.org is a one-stop site for those interested in seeing Nigeria through the lens of its large community of bloggers. We feature opinion and analysis, regular feeds, articles, and reviews of posts written by bloggers of Nigerian extraction, bloggers living in Nigeria, and bloggers who blog about Nigeria. NigeriansTalk seeks to cover the wide spectrum of perspectives on various social, political, and personal issues – issues that affect Nigerians at home and abroad.